此外，密尔的原则将事情关键地分为两个领域:个人和公众。即使所有与私人有关的问题都得到了满意的回答，与公共行为有关的问题也要稍微大一些:当一个人采取行动时，它通常会对他人产生影响，无论这种影响有多轻微。如果这些影响的影响是侵犯他人的权利或幸福，那么根据密尔的逻辑，国家和人民干涉他们的行为是正当的。那么桥上的警卫呢?他们被迫让自杀者继续逃跑，然后被迫目睹他们的死亡。能不能说，为了避免这种精神上的痛苦，跑步者应该被阻止行动?在《论自由》一书中，密尔对后来可能采取的各种行动给予了很大的考虑，展示了他的简单原则是如何被解释和使用的。卫兵当然可以转身离开，在密尔的时代，这样的考虑不会被考虑太多，在现代精神健康观念出现之前很久。这是一个有趣的问题，看看密尔的实际论点，但我们必须勉强应用他的原则，以便找到他可能的答案。他不太可能希望它对行动的考虑产生影响——毕竟，如果它真的发生了，那么任何严重的行动都可以通过简单地安排一个人在那里观看它而受伤来阻止。他甚至不太可能暂时接受这种对个人自由的大规模限制。没有必要对密尔的原则进行过度思考，因为他创造了一些疯狂的环境，并询问他的决定是否仍然适用。
英国利物浦代写论文:密尔的原则
Furthermore, Mill’s principle divides matters crucially into two areas: the personal and the public. Even if all the questions relating to the private are answered satisfactorily, the questions relating to public actions are somewhat greater: when a man acts, it will typically affect others, however mildly. If the impact of these effects is to infringe upon the rights or happiness of others, then the state and the people are justified, under Mill’s logic, in interfering with their actions. So what about the guard on the bridge – compelled to allow the suicidal to continue running, and then forced to witness their deaths? Could it be said that in order to prevent this mental anguish, the runner should be prevented from acting? Mill gives great consideration to various potential actions later in On Liberty, showing how his simple principle can be interpreted and used. The guard can of course turn away, and in Mill’s time such considerations would not have been given much thought, so long before modern ideas about mental health. It is a question that would have been interesting to see Mill’s actual argument, but we must make do with merely applying his principle in order to find his likely answer ourselves. It is unlikely he would have wishes it to have an impact on the consideration of the action – after all, if it did then any serious act could be prevented simply by placing somebody there who would be injured by watching it. It is highly unlikely he would have even momentarily entertained this massive curtailment of individual liberty. There is not necessarily any need to over-think Mill’s principle by inventing wild circumstances and asking whether or not his decisions would still apply.
